In what has become her signature style of unapologetic takedowns, conservative commentator Candace Owens recently launched a searing critique of two of ABC’s most prominent news anchors: David Muir and Linsey Davis. In a no-holds-barred rant that quickly gained traction across social media, Owens lambasted the anchors for what she described as “a complete abandonment of journalistic integrity” during their moderation of a high-profile political debate. According to Owens, the pair showed blatant favoritism and failed to uphold the impartiality expected from seasoned journalists.
“David Muir and Linsey Davis are an absolute disgrace to their profession,” Owens declared in a fiery tweet that sent her followers into a frenzy. “What we saw wasn’t journalism—it was a carefully orchestrated hit job on one candidate while the other was given a free pass. This is exactly why people have lost faith in the mainstream media.”
Owens, who has made a career out of calling out perceived left-wing bias in the media, wasn’t content to stop at just a tweet. She doubled down in subsequent interviews, accusing Muir and Davis of turning the debate into a “one-sided attack” on Donald Trump while letting Kamala Harris “coast through without even a basic challenge.” The accusation sent shockwaves through media circles, with some praising Owens for speaking truth to power and others dismissing her claims as exaggerated and politically motivated.
The debate in question, moderated by Muir and Davis, was one of the most anticipated political events of the season, pitting Donald Trump against Vice President Kamala Harris. The event was filled with heated exchanges, but according to Owens and many of her supporters, the real issue wasn’t the candidates on stage but the moderators.
Throughout the debate, both Muir and Davis fact-checked Trump on several occasions, correcting his statements in real-time and pressing him for answers on controversial topics. Meanwhile, Harris was given what Owens described as a “softball” approach, with the moderators rarely interrupting or challenging her responses. To Owens and her camp, the difference in treatment was stark and undeniable.
“It was like watching a courtroom drama where the prosecutor keeps hammering the defense, but the defense attorney is too scared to say anything,” Owens said during a guest appearance on a conservative podcast. “Muir and Davis didn’t even pretend to be neutral. They had an agenda, and it was clear as day.”
Owens’ comments struck a chord with many conservative viewers who have long criticized mainstream media for what they perceive as a left-leaning bias. To them, the debate was just the latest example of a media landscape that is more interested in promoting one political ideology than in providing balanced and fair coverage.
Of course, not everyone agrees with Owens’ assessment. Defenders of Muir and Davis argue that their fact-checking was not biased but a necessary part of modern journalism. In an era where misinformation can spread like wildfire, many believe that moderators have a duty to correct false statements in real-time, especially when those statements come from someone with as large a platform as Donald Trump.
“Muir and Davis were doing their jobs,” said one media analyst. “When a candidate makes a claim that is demonstrably false, it’s the moderator’s responsibility to set the record straight. It’s not about taking sides—it’s about making sure the viewers get the facts.”
But Owens was having none of it. In her view, the fact-checking wasn’t about truth—it was about shaping the narrative. She pointed to several moments during the debate where Trump’s statements were interrupted for corrections, while similar scrutiny was not applied to Harris.
“If this is what we call journalism now, we’re in big trouble,” Owens said. “Moderators aren’t supposed to be participants in the debate. They’re supposed to guide the discussion and make sure both sides get a fair shake. But that’s not what happened here.”
As with anything involving Candace Owens, her comments about Muir and Davis quickly ignited a firestorm on social media. Within hours of her initial tweet, hashtags like #DisgraceToJournalism and #CandaceWasRight began trending, with thousands of users weighing in on both sides of the argument.
“Finally, someone is calling out the mainstream media for what they are—biased hacks!” one Twitter user wrote. “Candace Owens is spot on. The media has become a joke, and Muir and Davis are just the latest examples.”
Others, however, were quick to defend the ABC anchors. “Candace Owens wouldn’t know good journalism if it hit her in the face,” another user posted. “David Muir and Linsey Davis are respected professionals, and they did exactly what they were supposed to do—hold candidates accountable.”
The controversy even spilled over into cable news, where pundits on both sides of the political spectrum weighed in on Owens’ comments. Some conservative commentators applauded Owens for speaking out against what they see as a systemic problem in mainstream media, while liberal commentators dismissed her remarks as nothing more than partisan grandstanding.
David Muir and Linsey Davis are no strangers to high-stakes journalism. Muir, the anchor of World News Tonight, is one of the most trusted names in broadcast news, known for his calm demeanor and meticulous reporting. Davis, a veteran journalist and anchor, has also built a reputation for delivering hard-hitting interviews and covering major events with poise.
But to Owens and her supporters, reputation means little when the perceived bias is so glaring. They argue that the credibility Muir and Davis have built over the years doesn’t excuse what they see as their failure to remain impartial during the debate.
“Just because you’ve been in the business a long time doesn’t mean you get a pass when you drop the ball,” Owens said. “They dropped the ball, plain and simple.”
Despite the backlash from Owens and her followers, both Muir and Davis have remained silent on the matter, choosing not to engage in the public spat. ABC has also refrained from issuing an official statement, perhaps hoping that the controversy will blow over on its own.
As the dust begins to settle, it’s clear that Candace Owens has once again managed to inject herself into the center of a media storm. Whether you agree with her or not, her critique of Muir and Davis has sparked an important conversation about the role of moderators in political debates and the fine line between fact-checking and bias.
For Owens, the fight is far from over. She has vowed to continue calling out what she sees as the “disgraceful” state of modern journalism, promising to hold media figures accountable whenever they stray from the principles of fairness and neutrality.
As for Muir and Davis, it remains to be seen whether this latest controversy will have any lasting impact on their careers. For now, they continue to anchor ABC’s top news programs, their reputations largely intact. But in the age of social media, where a single tweet can spark a firestorm, they may find themselves navigating an increasingly difficult landscape—one where even the most respected journalists are not immune to public criticism.
